1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination
2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship
Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º

Joana case: Former PJ inspector’s defense requests exclusion of Lawyers’ Order as an assistant

Lisboa, Feb 11 (Lusa) – The defence of former PJ inspector Leonel Morgado Marques, one of the ‘arguidos’ in the trial over alleged aggressions on Leonor Cipriano, requested the annulment of the dispatch that constituted the Lawyers’ Order (LO) as an assistant to the accusation.

A judicial source revealed to Lusa Agency today that the defense of Leonel Morgado Marques directed an appeal to the Appeals Court of Évora, in order to revoke the decision that allowed for the LO to become an assistant, as well as the refusal dispatch that prevented the head of the Order, Marinho Pinto, from being questioned within the process, which is under trial at the Court of Faro.

In the appeal, to which Lusa was given access, it is sustained that both dispatches “are faulty due to some superficiality, failing to adequately interpret and apply certain legal precepts”, the reason why it is understood that they should “be revoked and substituted by another decision that revokes the constitution and the intervention of the LO” and accepts “the requested probative diligence” for the questioning of Marinho Pinto.

The lawyer for the former PJ inspector, António Pragal Colaço, believes that “the legal fundaments for the dispatch” that admitted the constitution of the lawyers’ representative structure “is very wrong”, stressing that in the process in which Leonor Cipriano accuses present and former PJ inspectors, and in which jurist Rodrigo Santiago is an assistant for the LO, “the discussion does not focus on issues that are related to the exercise” of advocacy.

The document that was sent to the Appeals Court of Évora is based on the argument that the LO’s intervention in the trial “has not been complying to the strict observance of legal procedures”, assuming “a totally persecutory stance” towards the present and former PJ inspectors, without respecting “the principle of innocence” and “revolting whenever evidence (…) contrary to the accusation is produced”.

“The constitution of the LO as an assistant (…) ended up preventing the questioning of Dr António Marinho Pinto as a witness”, the document for the appeals court underlines, further arguing that “an essential mean of evidence to clarify questions that are relevant to the discovery of the material truth and the cause’s good decision has been restrained”.

The defence of Leonel Morgado Marques defends that the LO’s head has profound knowledge of the facts, “which is well mirrored by the contents of the article that he published in the Expresso newspaper, in February 2005, which ultimately launched this process into an unimaginable media-exposed trip, when it was still under judicial secrecy”.

The diligence to the Appeals Court of Évora further mentions the “direct contact” of Leonor Cipriano’s lawyer, Marcos Aragão Correia, with Marinho Pinto, as well as the fact that the head of the LO divulged “information of equal relevance about the process”, “in several interviews” and “communiqués”.

It is mentioned that “it is unknown through whom Dr Marinho Pinto obtained the photographs that he published and [who] offered him knowledge of the facts that are contained in the article” that was published in Expresso, and it is referred that the deposition of the Director of the Prison of Odemira, where Leonor Cipriano is serving her sentence, indicates that Ana Maria Calado “held conversations” with the head of the LO.

Due to what was exposed, it is considered to be “fundamental to understand who was the vehicle for the information, the situation that allowed for public preconception concerning the facts”, the reason why it was requested “that Marinho Pinto authorised the lifting of the secrecy on mobile and fixed communications”.

Therefore, the former inspector’s defence concludes that it is “essential to inquire” Marinho Pinto within the trial or that the head of the LO uses the prerogative to reply in writing until there is a decision concerning the appeal over the admissibility of the LO as an assistant, for the first time in Portuguese judicial history.

Lusa agency tried to collect a comment from the LO or from Marinho Pinto concerning this appeal, but it wasn’t possible.

The process over alleged aggressions against Leonor Cipriano by PJ inspectors, among whom is Gonçalo Amaral – three stand accused of the crime of torture, one of failing to assist and omitting a denunciation, and a fifth one stands accused of document forgery – began to be tried in September 2008 and is related to the so-called “Joana case”.

The “Joana case” dates back to the 12th of September 2004, the day when the little girl, then aged eight, disappeared from the village of Figueira, Portimão; her mother, Leonor Cipriano, and her uncle, João Cipriano, were condemned to 16 years in prison each over the crimes of qualified homicide and concealment of a cadaver.